Guerra-Caballero v. Ashcroft , 130 F. App'x 487 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                 Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
    Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 04-1542
    MARLENE DAISY GUERRA CABALLERO ET AL.,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES,* ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
    OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
    Before
    Boudin, Chief Judge,
    Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
    Desmond P. FitzGerald and FitzGerald & Company, LLC on brief
    for petitioners.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
    M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration
    Litigation, and Carol Federighi, Attorney, Office of Immigration
    Litigation, on brief, for respondent.
    May 11, 2005
    *
    Alberto R. Gonzales was sworn in as United States Attorney
    General on February 3, 2005.      We have therefore substituted
    Attorney General Gonzales for his predecessor in office as
    respondent in this matter. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
    Per Curiam.      In September of 2000, petitioner-appellant
    Marlene   Daisy     Guerra      Caballero       (Guerra)   and    her   three   minor
    children, all Panamanian nationals, were apprehended by immigration
    officials at Miami International Airport when they failed to
    present valid entry documents.             The government instituted removal
    proceedings but provisionally released the petitioner and her
    family, who took up residence in Massachusetts.                         The removal
    proceedings were referred there and the petitioner cross-filed for
    asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
    against Torture (CAT) on behalf of herself and her children.
    Following a hearing on March 14, 2003, an immigration
    judge (IJ) adjudged the petitioner and her children removable and
    rejected their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
    relief under CAT. The IJ's memorandum decision admonished that any
    appeals from the decision were due on or before April 14, 2003.
    See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.38
    (b) (stating that appeals shall be filed
    within thirty days after the stating of an IJ's oral decision or
    the mailing of an IJ's written decision).                  The IJ's written order
    was personally served on the petitioner.
    The    petitioner's       attorney,         Desmond    P.   FitzGerald,
    completed   a     notice   of    appeal     on    the   petitioner's     behalf   and
    overnighted it, via a delivery service, on Friday, April 11, 2003.
    This notice listed only the petitioner as an appellant, omitting
    -2-
    any mention of her children.1          The mailing was flawed, however, in
    a fatal respect:        it was addressed to the immigration court in
    Boston rather than to the BIA's offices in Falls Church, Virginia.
    See 
    id.
     (stating that "[t]he Notice of Appeal . . . shall be filed
    directly with the Board of Immigration Appeals").                   The following
    Monday, a clerk at the immigration court received the wayward
    missive and promptly called Attorney FitzGerald to notify him of
    the   error.       By   then,   it   was   too   late:      although     Attorney
    FitzGerald's office promptly forwarded a duplicate copy of the
    notice to the BIA, that agency did not receive it until April 16,
    2003 — two business days after the regulatory deadline had passed.
    The    petitioner    followed    this   unsuccessful       effort   at
    remediation with a motion to enlarge the time to file a brief, in
    which     she   acknowledged     her    lapse    and     asserted     unspecified
    constitutional rights in an attempt to persuade the BIA to overlook
    that lapse.       The BIA was unconvinced:       in a decision dated August
    25, 2003, it cited the expiration of the thirty-day appeal period
    as its basis for determining that further briefing would be an
    exercise in futility and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
    over the attempted appeal.           Accordingly, the BIA deemed the IJ's
    1
    No notices of appeal were filed on the children's behalf
    until almost six months after the due date. On March 24, 2004, the
    BIA rejected the children's appeals as untimely.     In her brief
    before this court, the petitioner discusses only the BIA's failure
    to allow her own appeal to proceed; she does not attempt to
    formulate any argument that the children's appeals were timely.
    -3-
    decision "final" and returned the case to the immigration court.
    See 
    id.
     § 1003.39.
    Undeterred,    the   petitioner    filed      a   motion   for
    reconsideration.     In it, she characterized her attorney's blunder
    as a "technical error[]" and argued that her good-faith effort to
    comply with the deadline warranted a determination that the notice
    of appeal was timely.     The BIA denied the motion on March 24, 2004,
    repeating substantially the same refrain that had been articulated
    in   its   earlier   decision.   This    petition   for   judicial   review
    followed.
    On appeal, the petitioner renews her attack, first made
    below, on the BIA's determination that her appeal rights were
    forfeited.    Because the petitioner failed to seek timely judicial
    review of the BIA's August 25, 2003 ruling, the scope of our review
    is necessarily limited to the BIA's denial of her motion to
    reconsider.    See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(1) (requiring that petitions
    for judicial review be submitted within thirty days of a final
    order of removal); see also Stone v. INS, 
    514 U.S. 386
    , 394-95
    (1995) (holding that filing a motion for reconsideration does not
    toll the time to petition for review); Zhang v. INS, 
    348 F.3d 289
    ,
    292 (1st Cir. 2003) (similar).
    We review denials of motions to reconsider solely for
    abuse of discretion.      Zhang, 
    348 F.3d at 293
    ; Nascimento v. INS,
    
    274 F.3d 26
    , 28 (1st Cir. 2001).     "In the reconsideration context,
    -4-
    we will find an abuse of discretion if the denial was made without
    a 'rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established
    policies, or rested on an impermissible basis' (such as race)."
    Zhang, 
    348 F.3d at 293
     (quoting Nascimento, 
    274 F.3d at 28
    ).
    Viewed through this prism, the petitioner's argument is
    unpersuasive. She devotes her brief to explaining, for what is now
    the third time, why her notice of appeal should be considered
    timely even though the BIA did not receive it by the appointed
    deadline.   The substantive argument is unavailing:   the applicable
    regulations are crystal clear as to what constitutes timely filing
    of a notice of appeal, and the petitioner's filing does not satisfy
    those criteria.    See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.3
    (a)(1) ("An appeal is not
    properly filed unless it is received at the Board, along with all
    required documents, fees or fee waiver requests, and proof of
    service, within the time specified in the governing sections of
    this chapter." (emphasis supplied)); 
    id.
     § 1003.38(b) (stating that
    the notice "shall be filed directly with the Board of Immigration
    Appeals within 30 calendar days" of an IJ's decision).      The BIA
    itself recognized, more than half a century ago, that it ordinarily
    is powerless to ignore this regulatory limitation.2       "Where an
    2
    Under certain circumstances an immigration court may certify
    an appeal directly to the BIA. See 
    8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1
    (c), 1003.7.
    Such a certification may provide the agency with the ability to
    review an otherwise untimely appeal. See Shamsi v. INS, 
    998 F.2d 761
    , 762 n.2 (9th Cir. 1993); Matter of Iberia Airlines Flight No.
    IB 951, 
    19 I. & N. Dec. 768
    , 768-69 (BIA 1988). However, this
    procedure is entirely discretionary and, in all events, has not
    -5-
    appeal is not filed timely . . . the Board is without authority or
    jurisdiction to consider the appeal."      Matter of G-Z-, 
    5 I. & N. Dec. 295
    , 295 (BIA 1953) (holding that an appeal filed one day late
    was unreviewable); accord Da Cruz v. INS, 
    4 F.3d 721
    , 722 (9th Cir.
    1993).
    There are, of course, equitable exceptions to this rule
    — but they are very few and far between.    For example, courts have
    granted equitable relief when a petitioner has been misled by the
    IJ's acts or words into believing that the time for appeal has been
    extended or tolled and then reasonably relied on that assurance.
    See, e.g., Hernandez-Rivera v. INS, 
    630 F.2d 1352
    , 1355 (9th Cir.
    1980).   Nothing remotely resembling such misplaced reliance is
    alleged here.   This is a case of late filing, pure and simple, and
    thus does not justify an equitable exception.     See Stajic v. INS,
    
    961 F.2d 403
    , 404-05 (2d Cir. 1992).
    At bottom, the petitioner invites us to classify as
    irrational, anomalous, or discriminatory a BIA decision that did no
    more than apply the regulations straightforwardly and in a manner
    consistent with the Board's own precedents.      On this record, it
    would defy logic to accept that invitation.    There is no hint here
    that the BIA misconceived the facts, misinterpreted the law, or
    acted arbitrarily.   Accordingly, there is no plausible basis for
    been invoked here.
    -6-
    finding an abuse of discretion.    See Wang v. Ashcroft, 
    367 F.3d 25
    ,
    27 (1st Cir. 2004).
    We need go no further.    We hold that the BIA acted within
    the realm of its discretion when it denied the petitioner's motion
    for reconsideration and refused to revivify her expired appeal
    rights.
    The petition for review is denied.
    -7-